Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #651745 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-04-07 13:12 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 55 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-23 08:09 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-23 15:02 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-23 21:35 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-24 07:40 -0500
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-24 13:07 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-24 16:38 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-24 16:55 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Lénárt Szakács Keresztes <fn@jvre.hu> - 2024-02-24 19:58 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 14:34 -0600
Re: ? ? ? Oga Shiganori Yoshikawa <nooos@nooor.jp> - 2024-02-24 23:22 +0000
Re: ? ? ? pnalsing@gmail.com (palsing) - 2024-02-25 02:51 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jon-Michael Zhong <ja@llcmz.cn> - 2024-02-25 16:06 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-25 14:56 -0500
Re: ? ? ? Wilbert Araújo <rrallri@jreia.pt> - 2024-02-25 20:29 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Kennith Félix Escárcega <egkeb@uefcrake.es> - 2024-02-25 20:49 +0000
Re: ? ? ? tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-02-24 16:35 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-23 15:47 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-02-23 16:53 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-24 08:48 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-24 11:01 +0200
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-24 13:06 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-02-24 15:52 +0200
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-02-25 13:30 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-25 07:50 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-25 15:42 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-25 21:36 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-26 07:30 +0100
Re: ? ? ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-26 11:02 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Piotr Babchenko Bakulev <ptpet@ito.ru> - 2024-02-26 20:57 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-27 07:48 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Huy Kántor Hegedűs <re@uushhes.hu> - 2024-02-28 22:22 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-02-29 06:51 +0100
Re: ? ? ? tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-02-29 16:54 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-02-29 22:23 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 20:13 -0800
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-01 07:27 +0100
Re: ? ? ? tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-03-01 17:04 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-03-01 20:47 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-01 23:44 +0100
Re: ? ? ? tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-03-02 06:59 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-03 08:04 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Michelle Tatár Buzás <llihpm@selce.hu> - 2024-03-02 09:34 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-01 07:25 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-05 09:41 +0200
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 00:50 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 00:59 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 09:18 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-16 07:20 +0200
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-16 09:19 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-19 08:17 +0200
Re: ? ? ? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-01 14:24 -0500
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-01 23:41 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Bennie Müller Madarász <llye@nuilrnm.hu> - 2024-03-02 00:33 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-05 21:26 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Boris Kuang She <ooo@rsisres.cn> - 2024-03-05 23:16 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-06 06:53 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-05 23:17 -0800
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-05 23:30 -0800
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-05 23:44 -0800
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-06 00:00 -0800
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-06 09:14 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2024-03-06 08:57 -0500
Re: ? ? ? Barros Romão <dko@rddda.pt> - 2024-03-06 14:25 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-03-06 11:03 -0500
Re: ? ? ? Rózsa Szőllősi <nrme@rnaazj.hu> - 2024-03-06 14:07 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-06 16:29 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-07 07:57 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-07 15:41 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-08 09:12 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-08 10:10 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-09 08:20 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Bogdan Guleichik Balagul <gb@giioh.ru> - 2024-03-09 08:04 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-10 08:41 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Hania Pusztai Sebestyén <iuti@aapiz.hu> - 2024-03-10 08:03 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-15 08:14 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Connie Bairashevski Balashoff <ahhe@vks.ru> - 2024-03-15 11:19 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-17 07:59 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Chellos Leontarakis <akbsto@hs.gr> - 2024-03-17 09:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-21 07:37 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Péter Juhász <spt@ebn.hu> - 2024-03-21 13:46 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-23 08:03 +0100
Re: ? ? ? TReena Pooja Kishan <iaa@trarin.in> - 2024-03-23 17:21 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-25 07:57 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Smith Matoke Yamamura <ma@maiur.jp> - 2024-03-25 18:03 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-10 11:35 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-12 09:30 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-12 13:01 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-14 08:24 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-14 09:42 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-17 07:55 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-17 09:00 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-17 13:03 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-17 21:42 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-17 16:10 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-18 06:59 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-18 07:24 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-18 07:54 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-20 08:29 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-20 15:22 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-03-20 16:10 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Elijah Katzuba Bakiev <evekj@bljja.ru> - 2024-03-20 22:34 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-21 10:08 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-23 08:08 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-23 10:29 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Zozrov Bakinov Mikhalev <ozoa@rioiro.ru> - 2024-03-23 19:40 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-25 08:03 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-25 08:17 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-18 07:24 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-19 01:01 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-19 13:16 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-19 11:58 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-19 20:33 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-19 12:09 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-19 20:35 +0100
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-19 23:22 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-20 14:53 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Osiris Moy <yoo@mrssiyr.cn> - 2024-03-14 10:09 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 12:42 -0600
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-06 12:58 -0800
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-06 13:02 -0800
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-06 13:05 -0800
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-06 13:09 -0800
Re: ? ? ? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-03-06 15:46 -0600
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-06 16:26 +0100
Re: ? ? ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-03-06 19:42 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-03-06 22:08 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 09:22 -0800
Re: ? ? ? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 12:23 -0600
Re: ? ? ? Vinson Makricosta Stamatelos <nnnncv@sk.gr> - 2024-02-29 20:39 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-29 15:27 -0600
Re: ? ? ? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2024-03-21 13:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-23 08:18 +0100
Re: ? ? ? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2024-03-23 10:24 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 07:19 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thean Nogushi Hatoyama <nllah@eeele.jp> - 2024-03-26 12:05 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:53 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-03-27 09:18 +0100
Re: ? ? ? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-03-27 12:43 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 13:00 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 13:01 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jed László Barabás <sx@sajd.hu> - 2024-03-27 11:24 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 12:47 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thaddeus Horiatis Demetrious <sit@ssdiet.gr> - 2024-03-27 14:56 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 23:02 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Yasmani Hasekura <asna@unnsmahua.jp> - 2024-03-28 02:38 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 03:14 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Leland Behtenev Basov <ene@thdnt.ru> - 2024-03-28 04:02 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 04:35 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-03-27 21:49 -0700
Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-26 23:49 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-28 07:14 +0100
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-28 07:09 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-30 08:54 +0100
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-03-30 10:38 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-02 07:56 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:07 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-03 08:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Yusney Turaev Momotov <tnoyn@ou.ru> - 2024-04-03 06:53 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 02:18 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-05 09:54 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-06 00:07 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-06 09:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-04-06 13:54 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 12:11 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-06 12:51 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:01 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 15:03 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-07 01:25 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-07 21:03 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-08 01:36 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 07:38 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 10:23 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-04-02 11:31 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2024-04-03 00:16 +0000
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 00:38 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 01:02 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 22:58 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 11:11 -0700
Re: Getting there at last... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-04-08 20:08 +0200
Re: Getting there at last... The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-08 21:19 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Yatzyk Trampotova <ezyey@kynyrt.ru> - 2024-03-23 17:39 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-03-25 08:06 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Evasio Alexandropoulos <ouep@seood.gr> - 2024-03-25 17:48 +0000
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-26 22:30 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-27 16:31 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-27 17:26 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-29 17:05 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-31 12:27 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-03-31 14:46 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-01 10:15 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-01 21:36 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 00:15 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 09:52 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-02 10:16 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-02 12:26 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-02 12:48 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-03 23:03 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 05:57 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-04 09:00 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 10:45 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Colin Mcdonald <mna@aincmic.uk> - 2024-04-04 22:59 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-04 16:20 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 00:45 -0700
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-04-05 01:20 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-04-05 06:24 -0700
Re: ? ? ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-02-26 13:36 +0100
Re: ? ? ? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-02-27 09:27 -0500
Re: ? ? ? Maria Komáromi Forgács <vcro@fmma.hu> - 2024-02-25 17:10 +0000
Re: ? ? ? Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 15:47 -0600
Re: ? ? ? Ionio Sabbag Nassar <ibabn@nagaig.eg> - 2024-02-25 23:18 +0000
Re: ? ? ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-02-25 15:50 -0800
Re: ? ? ? Richard Hachel <pourquoi-pas@tiscali.fr> - 2024-02-24 12:59 +0000
Re: ? ? ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-04-07 13:12 +0200
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 00:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <IXQv8LazUgNGHOfaop5NsVJfpZ0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652712 |
Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>> > ... > >> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power >> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided >> missile at hypersonic speeds. >> >> As for my gun, check out >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >> Follow the link to the 2-sec video. >> >>>> >>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges. >> >> Both are nonsense to me. >> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also busted. >> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe. >> >> I hope you realise that one day. > > I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics of > moving bodies' > (here: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) > > and know what you mean. > > But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong. It is entirely wrong from top to bottom. It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum (aether) pervading the universe. So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am today, by the establishment. The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great energies released are due to e=mcc. > It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed very > often: It is nonsense, period. > > we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both real. A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, causing interference. But that does not mean that time goes backwards. > > Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other > one is in relative motion 'backwards'. There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no change. However even in such situations outside the situation the estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do change. > > About QM I had to criticise a few points, too. > > That was mainly the particle concept itself. > > Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after the > big bang. Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific. > > But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth. Another nonsense. Earth is not growing. > > Since the Earth is in fact growing, the idea of lasting particles cannot > be true. The Earth is not in fact growing, save in the minds of certain esteemed theological crackpots pretending to be scientists. > > So, in a way, I had to strike a few assumptions, but maintain the idea > itself (of GR and QM). > > It's not my business anyhow, since what I tried to do, that is finding > the connection between GR and QM and didn't attempt to justify these > branches of physics. While relativity is rubbish, QM may have some use in certain applications. Similarly, relativity is useful when we assume a still Earth, with conformal transformations of matter around it showing apparent relativistic effect. Like Doppler may be explained with shortened or lengthened wavelengths, and indeed to the observer the waves look long or short, but not to third party seeing the flow. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > TH >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 09:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <l7ca43F7jrnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #652728 |
Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> ... >> >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided >>> missile at hypersonic speeds. >>> >>> As for my gun, check out >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video. >>> >>>>> >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges. >>> >>> Both are nonsense to me. >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also >>> busted. >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe. >>> >>> I hope you realise that one day. >> >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics >> of moving bodies' >> (here: >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) >> >> and know what you mean. >> >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong. > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom. 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves relative to something else. It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it. There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe. This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is self-contradicting. We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured. This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist. > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum > (aether) pervading the universe. Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you should not mix believe and theoretical physics. Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can simply ignore everything from whatever believe system. That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics. Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science. Science can only deliver truth. > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am > today, by the establishment. Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political worldmap. > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great > energies released are due to e=mcc. > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed >> very often: > > It is nonsense, period. No. There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it. >> >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both >> real. > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, > causing interference. > But that does not mean that time goes backwards. I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors'). They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are multiplied together with the neighbor. The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the axes of space. Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations to return to the initial state. After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction and everything is fliped over to a mirror image. Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards. That world is made from anti-matter. But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs backwards. That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend on the own point of view. E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide, who is correct. >> >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'. > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do > change. Sure, but time is local! This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we belong and which we could not leave. So: WE have only one single forward time. But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view. Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or in an angle. >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too. >> >> That was mainly the particle concept itself. >> >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after >> the big bang. > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific. Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and he was a jesuit priest. >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth. > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing. I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that Earth is in fact growing. It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious. A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 13:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <uurd5u$22ghq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #652735 |
Le 06/04/2024 à 09:03, Thomas Heger a écrit : ... > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves > relative to something else. > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it. > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe. > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is > self-contradicting. > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured. This statement of yours is utterly wrong: in Einstein paper v is, as it always been in physics since Galileo by the way, ALWAYS defined with respect to a specific frame of reference. Your abilities to misunderstand things are amazing Thomas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 12:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <66119E65.4D06@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652735 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker: > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> ... > >> > >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power > >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided > >>> missile at hypersonic speeds. > >>> > >>> As for my gun, check out > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video. > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges. > >>> > >>> Both are nonsense to me. > >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also > >>> busted. > >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe. > >>> > >>> I hope you realise that one day. > >> > >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics > >> of moving bodies' > >> (here: > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) > >> > >> and know what you mean. > >> > >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong. > > > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom. > > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves > relative to something else. > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it. > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe. > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is > self-contradicting. > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured. > > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist. > > > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum > > (aether) pervading the universe. > > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you > should not mix believe and theoretical physics. > > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system. > > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics. > > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science. > > Science can only deliver truth. > > > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am > > today, by the establishment. > > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political > worldmap. > > > > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to > > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear > > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great > > energies released are due to e=mcc. > > > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed > >> very often: > > > > It is nonsense, period. > No. > > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it. > >> > >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both > >> real. > > > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. > > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go > > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, > > causing interference. > > But that does not mean that time goes backwards. > > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors'). > > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are > multiplied together with the neighbor. > > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the > axes of space. > > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations > to return to the initial state. > > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image. > > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards. > > That world is made from anti-matter. > > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs > backwards. > > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend > on the own point of view. > > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide, > who is correct. > > >> > >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other > >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'. > > > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no > > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the > > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do > > change. > > Sure, but time is local! > > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we > belong and which we could not leave. > > So: WE have only one single forward time. > > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view. > > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or > in an angle. > > >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too. > >> > >> That was mainly the particle concept itself. > >> > >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after > >> the big bang. > > > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can > > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific. > > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and > he was a jesuit priest. > > >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth. > > > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing. > > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that > Earth is in fact growing. > > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious. > > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ > > ... > > TH Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 12:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <rnl8ek-retj1.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #652748 |
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: <snip old crap> > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel > Prize? Maybe because all facets of 'Earth Science' are covered by existing categories, which should be obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 16:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <6611D444.7464@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652749 |
Jim Pennino wrote: > > In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > <snip old crap> > > > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel > > Prize? > > Maybe because all facets of 'Earth Science' are covered by existing > categories, which should be obvious. You people have to excuse 'Jim Pennino'...he doesn't know what 'Earth Science' means. 'Earth Science' includes everything Earth, like it's environment, humans and their connection to earth, evolution, earth climate science, etc are covered. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 15:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <6611C6CE.149F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652748 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker: > > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >> ... > > >> > > >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power > > >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided > > >>> missile at hypersonic speeds. > > >>> > > >>> As for my gun, check out > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video. > > >>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges. > > >>> > > >>> Both are nonsense to me. > > >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also > > >>> busted. > > >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe. > > >>> > > >>> I hope you realise that one day. > > >> > > >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics > > >> of moving bodies' > > >> (here: > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) > > >> > > >> and know what you mean. > > >> > > >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong. > > > > > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom. > > > > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves > > relative to something else. > > > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it. > > > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, > > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe. > > > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is > > self-contradicting. > > > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a > > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured. > > > > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist. > > > > > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum > > > (aether) pervading the universe. > > > > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you > > should not mix believe and theoretical physics. > > > > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can > > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system. > > > > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics. > > > > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it > > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science. > > > > Science can only deliver truth. > > > > > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am > > > today, by the establishment. > > > > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail > > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political > > worldmap. > > > > > > > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to > > > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear > > > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great > > > energies released are due to e=mcc. > > > > > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed > > >> very often: > > > > > > It is nonsense, period. > > No. > > > > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it. > > >> > > >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both > > >> real. > > > > > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. > > > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go > > > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, > > > causing interference. > > > But that does not mean that time goes backwards. > > > > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors'). > > > > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are > > multiplied together with the neighbor. > > > > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the > > axes of space. > > > > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations > > to return to the initial state. > > > > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction > > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image. > > > > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact > > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards. > > > > That world is made from anti-matter. > > > > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs > > backwards. > > > > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend > > on the own point of view. > > > > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide, > > who is correct. > > > > >> > > >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other > > >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'. > > > > > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no > > > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the > > > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do > > > change. > > > > Sure, but time is local! > > > > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we > > belong and which we could not leave. > > > > So: WE have only one single forward time. > > > > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different > > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view. > > > > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as > > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or > > in an angle. > > > > >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too. > > >> > > >> That was mainly the particle concept itself. > > >> > > >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after > > >> the big bang. > > > > > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can > > > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific. > > > > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and > > he was a jesuit priest. > > > > >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth. > > > > > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing. > > > > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that > > Earth is in fact growing. > > > > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious. > > > > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ > > > > ... > > > > TH > > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel > Prize? I forgot to include Math category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize. Charles Darwin would have not have gotten one either... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-06 16:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <6611D550.4258@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652751 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > > Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > >> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > >>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > >>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > >>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > >>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> ... > > > >> > > > >>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power > > > >>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided > > > >>> missile at hypersonic speeds. > > > >>> > > > >>> As for my gun, check out > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > > >>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video. > > > >>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges. > > > >>> > > > >>> Both are nonsense to me. > > > >>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also > > > >>> busted. > > > >>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe. > > > >>> > > > >>> I hope you realise that one day. > > > >> > > > >> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics > > > >> of moving bodies' > > > >> (here: > > > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) > > > >> > > > >> and know what you mean. > > > >> > > > >> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong. > > > > > > > > It is entirely wrong from top to bottom. > > > > > > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves > > > relative to something else. > > > > > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it. > > > > > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, > > > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe. > > > > > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is > > > self-contradicting. > > > > > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a > > > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured. > > > > > > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist. > > > > > > > It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum > > > > (aether) pervading the universe. > > > > > > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you > > > should not mix believe and theoretical physics. > > > > > > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can > > > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system. > > > > > > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics. > > > > > > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it > > > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science. > > > > > > Science can only deliver truth. > > > > > > > So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am > > > > today, by the establishment. > > > > > > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail > > > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political > > > worldmap. > > > > > > > > > > > The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to > > > > politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear > > > > of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great > > > > energies released are due to e=mcc. > > > > > > > >> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed > > > >> very often: > > > > > > > > It is nonsense, period. > > > No. > > > > > > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it. > > > >> > > > >> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both > > > >> real. > > > > > > > > A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. > > > > Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go > > > > on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, > > > > causing interference. > > > > But that does not mean that time goes backwards. > > > > > > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors'). > > > > > > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are > > > multiplied together with the neighbor. > > > > > > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the > > > axes of space. > > > > > > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations > > > to return to the initial state. > > > > > > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction > > > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image. > > > > > > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact > > > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards. > > > > > > That world is made from anti-matter. > > > > > > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs > > > backwards. > > > > > > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend > > > on the own point of view. > > > > > > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide, > > > who is correct. > > > > > > >> > > > >> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other > > > >> one is in relative motion 'backwards'. > > > > > > > > There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no > > > > change. However even in such situations outside the situation the > > > > estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do > > > > change. > > > > > > Sure, but time is local! > > > > > > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we > > > belong and which we could not leave. > > > > > > So: WE have only one single forward time. > > > > > > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different > > > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view. > > > > > > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as > > > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or > > > in an angle. > > > > > > >> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too. > > > >> > > > >> That was mainly the particle concept itself. > > > >> > > > >> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after > > > >> the big bang. > > > > > > > > Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can > > > > a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific. > > > > > > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and > > > he was a jesuit priest. > > > > > > >> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth. > > > > > > > > Another nonsense. Earth is not growing. > > > > > > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that > > > Earth is in fact growing. > > > > > > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious. > > > > > > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams: > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ > > > > > > ... > > > > > > TH > > > > Can you explain why 'Earth Science' category is not allowed for a Nobel > > Prize? > > I forgot to include Math category is not allowed for a Nobel Prize. No proof numbers exist out there.. no proof that the universe is mathematical... Math is just a cult. White man Math. > > Charles Darwin would have not have gotten one either... for what, Evolution? no category there either... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-07 01:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <VtWMPcrsP6z8IXS625c43CiJiag@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652735 |
Le 06/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am 06.04.2024 um 02:07 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >> Le 05/04/2024 à 18:49, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am 04.04.2024 um 04:18 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>> Le 03/04/2024 à 16:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:07 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> ... >>> >>>> It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power >>>> consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided >>>> missile at hypersonic speeds. >>>> >>>> As for my gun, check out >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>>> Follow the link to the 2-sec video. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and trying to connect QM and GR is...apples and oranges. >>>> >>>> Both are nonsense to me. >>>> When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also >>>> busted. >>>> Aether is back, filling the infinite universe. >>>> >>>> I hope you realise that one day. >>> >>> I have actually written a longish critique of 'On the electrodynamics >>> of moving bodies' >>> (here: >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkhX-B5u7X4ga0QH-C53RddjQGctZVdo/view ) >>> >>> and know what you mean. >>> >>> But I think, that relativity is not entirely wrong. >> >> It is entirely wrong from top to bottom. > > 'relativity' is actually an undisputable fact, because everything moves > relative to something else. > > It's such a simple fact, that hardly anybody can reject it. > > There exist another view, which is based on Newton's absolute space, > which would allow to defince velocity in respect to the universe. > > This view is actually the position of Einstein in SRT, even if it is > self-contradicting. > > We can see this in the use of velocity v without definition of a > reference point, in respect to which velocity is measured. > > This would require an absolute space, which Einstein declared to not exist. > > >> It is not science, but Jewish dogma to get rid of the Arya notion of aum >> (aether) pervading the universe. > > Religion and science are not exactly the same thing, therefore you > should not mix believe and theoretical physics. > > Physics is as natural science not concerned with religious bias and can > simply ignore everything from whatever believe system. > > That's why there exists no 'Aryan physics', but only true physics. > > Whether you like it or not, whether you profit from it or if it > undermines you believes, that isn't the business of science. > > Science can only deliver truth. > >> So to begin with, Einstein et al were mocked and ridiculed just as I am >> today, by the establishment. > > Well, your theories are a different story, because highly efficiant rail > guns are a politiical issue, which could eventually change the political > worldmap. > >> >> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to >> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear >> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great >> energies released are due to e=mcc. >> >>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed >>> very often: >> >> It is nonsense, period. > No. > > There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it. >>> >>> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both >>> real. >> >> A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. >> Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go >> on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, >> causing interference. >> But that does not mean that time goes backwards. > > I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex four-vectors'). Theory is fine, so long as fact is also involved, in the scientific method. > > They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are > multiplied together with the neighbor. Where is that field? Any measurements possible? > > The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units the > axes of space. Makes no sense. > > Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two rotations > to return to the initial state. Makes no sense. > > After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction > and everything is fliped over to a mirror image. The axis "of time?" was said to be imaginary, now how can it suddenly become real? Rest makes no sense. > > Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in fact > exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards. Far too imaginary. Makes no sense in the scientific sense. > > That world is made from anti-matter. From an assumption made earlier, we now come to presumption. Makes no scientific sense. > > But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time runs > backwards. Amazing how imaginations and assumptions suddenly become realities. > > That is actually the main priciple of relativity: that relations depend > on the own point of view. That I agree, but that has nothing to do with the speed of light being independent of the speed of the emitter. > > E.g. if I see you moving, you can see me moving and we cannot decide, > who is correct. Some still robot on an inertial frame can decide who is moving where and how. > > > >>> >>> Which time is forward, that is debatable, hence both are and the other >>> one is in relative motion 'backwards'. >> >> There is ONLY forward time, or NO time in situations where there is no >> change. However even in such situations outside the situation the >> estimate of time can be done, by those in situations where things do >> change. > > Sure, but time is local! Time is absolute. It may seem to stop at places where no events happen. To an external it will be remaining that way for ever so long. > > This time belongs to the local 'time domaine', to which in turn we > belong and which we could not leave. Oh we leave all right when we die. > > So: WE have only one single forward time. Yes. > > But the anti-guys from that 'world behind the mirror' have a different > time, which runs also forwward locally, bach backwards in our view. That is imaginary. Does not happen. > > Since rotation of the axis of time can also occur gradually, we could as > well assume a world, where the axis of time points sideways to ours or > in an angle. Time axis is linear, does not rotate. The basic is the distant stars. The time to get the repeated fix is one year and some time plus, and that makes our calendar. Perfectly linear, and absolute. > > > >>> About QM I had to criticise a few points, too. >>> >>> That was mainly the particle concept itself. >>> >>> Particles are assumed to be lasting entities, created shortly after >>> the big bang. >> >> Another dogmatic assertion, the big bang. It is only a theory. How can >> a theory become accepted like fact? Most unscientific. > > > Well, yes, because it was George LeMaitre, who introduced this idea and > he was a jesuit priest. I have great respect for Jesuit priests, like Father Vassalo, who taught me physics in Std 8, explaining heat by wiggling his belly - to show that with more temperature, the measure of hotness, there is more wiggling involved for any mass and at absolute zero there is no wiggling, the material particles do not move; but, by the belly of Father Vassalo, I say that not all Jesuit priests may be correct in all aspects of their thinking. > >>> But I found a counter-example: Growing Earth. >> >> Another nonsense. Earth is not growing. > > > I have spent about ten years with this topic and can assure you, that > Earth is in fact growing. Well, if assumptions and imaginations are reality, with no science (meaning experiments, measurement, objectivity, honesty) involved, then you may be right. > > It is a complicated topic and not quite obvious. > > A good starting point is this video by Neal Adams: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ > > > ... > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-07 21:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <l7g8lmFprkqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #652754 |
Am 07.04.2024 um 03:25 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>> >>> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to >>> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear >>> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great >>> energies released are due to e=mcc. >>> >>>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed >>>> very often: >>> >>> It is nonsense, period. >> No. >> >> There is a guy named Tom Bearden, who wrote about it. >>>> >>>> we have a forward and a backwards time, which both occur and are both >>>> real. >>> >>> A dogmatic assertion. There is NO backwards time. This is pure nonsense. >>> Yes there are such things as phase differences, meaning a signal can go >>> on two different paths and meet at different times at the same place, >>> causing interference. >>> But that does not mean that time goes backwards. >> >> I have based my own theory upon bi-quaternions (aka 'complex >> four-vectors'). > > Theory is fine, so long as fact is also involved, in the scientific method. >> >> They form a field and are internally connected, as if they are >> multiplied together with the neighbor. > > Where is that field? Any measurements possible? The idea was, that nature should be made from simple things on a fundamental level. But the standard model of QM is far too complicated. It is also not 'relativistic' enough. So I assumed a relatively simple mechanism and tried to connect this to known facts in physics. The idea is named 'structured spacetime', where spacetime is a real physical entity and matter and everything else internal structures. Spacetime is built for something similar to points in space, but with features and more dimensions. I had identified biquaternions as mathematical analogon and something call 'Pauli algebra'. This is actually already the entire idea. Now I had tried to show, that all known phenomena in physics would fit to such a scheme. but I had to sacifice a few things. This was especially the case for particles and a single, uniform, universal time. >> >> The imaginary axis builds the axis of time and the three real units >> the axes of space. > > Makes no sense. The idea behind it is this: look at a spacetime diagramm with two axes. One is called 'spacelike' and one 'timelike'. Now compare this with an Argand-diagramm. You will find, that it would make sense to assume, that spacetime is actually complex valued. Now so called 'complex four-vectors' remained in my 'dragnet' and were the basis of my 'theory' (actually I do not call it 'theory' but 'concept'). >> >> Now this construct is anti-symmetric. that means, it takes two >> rotations to return to the initial state. > > Makes no sense. Sure it makes sense. But it's an advanced topic, so possibly you have never heard of that before. >> >> After one rotation the axis of time points into the opposite direction >> and everything is fliped over to a mirror image. > > The axis "of time?" was said to be imaginary, now how can it suddenly > become real? > Rest makes no sense. I promote a certain book by a 'Alexander Franklin Meyer' called 'Geometry of time' about this issue. >> >> Now we could assume, that such a 'world behind the mirror' does in >> fact exist, where time runs (in our view) backwards. > > Far too imaginary. Makes no sense in the scientific sense. It is not imaginary, but speculative. Sure it is VERY speculative. But why not? >> That world is made from anti-matter. > > From an assumption made earlier, we now come to presumption. > Makes no scientific sense. >> >> But seen from there our world is made from anti-matter and our time >> runs backwards. > > Amazing how imaginations and assumptions suddenly become realities. Speculations, please! ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-08 01:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <eZ4DeEDJTHryoa52-kzkaonijtA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652764 |
Le 08/04/2024 à 04:58, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am 07.04.2024 um 03:25 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > >>>> >>>> The eminence of relativity today is not due to any science, but to >>>> politics driven by money, media and academia on one hand, and the fear >>>> of nukes by the public on the other, which wrongly thinks that the great >>>> energies released are due to e=mcc. >>>> >>>>> It is a principle, which is VERY counterintuitive and not discussed >>>>> very often: >>>> >>>> It is nonsense, period. >>> No. Let us agree to disagree. That goes for all the rest of your arguments, below, afaiac. - snip - Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 07:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <AwNHa33OTto93tgHGw_X4ucJZ-Y@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652618 |
Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> From your book, the following quote >>>> *** >>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and >>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without >>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but >>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** >>>> >>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. >>> >>> Sure. >>> >>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and >>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. >>> >>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two >>> endpoints of the way found. >>> >>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his >>> fault. >>> >>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. >>> >>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. >>> >>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in >>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let >>>> heavenly light in. >>> >>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. >>> >>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in >>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because >>> they were questioning the authority of the church. >>> >>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be >>> punished by death. >>> >>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene >>> in physics anymore. >>> >>>> >>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>>> there. >>> >>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. >>> >>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows >>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see >>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and >>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful >>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves >>>> respect. >>> >>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would >>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. >>> >>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to >>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun >>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new >>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. >>> >>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? >> >> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, >> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design >> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown >> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my >> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, >> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that >> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of >> youtube videos. >> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they >> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my >> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force >> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used >> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some >> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My >> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > > I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > > But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. Thanks very much. > > So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > stepping on a lot of feet. Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > > It's interesting, anyhow. Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that is good. > > btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > worked quite well. My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and gearing up for space mining, etc. Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. Courage! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode Arindam Banerjee, HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne 10 Nov 2023 (All rights reserved) https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ *** Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s ***** Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ Section 1 Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ Section 1 (contd.) Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ Section 2 The Creation and Destruction of Energy https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ Section 3 The Structure of Heavenly Bodies https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ Section 4 The Nature of Explosion https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ Section 5 The forces involved in rotational motion https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ ******* 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg IFE - 1 Ground Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s IFE - 2 Experimental setups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc IFE - 6 Spaceship Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY IFE - 8 New Physics **** The physics aphorisms of Arindam https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ The cause of gravity https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ ***** > > This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > > > > > TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 10:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <660C3EF7.3876@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652621 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> TH > >>>> > >>>> From your book, the following quote > >>>> *** > >>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > >>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > >>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > >>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > >>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > >>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > >>>> > >>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > >>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > >>> > >>> Sure. > >>> > >>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > >>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > >>> > >>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > >>> endpoints of the way found. > >>> > >>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > >>> fault. > >>> > >>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > >>> > >>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > >>> > >>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > >>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > >>>> heavenly light in. > >>> > >>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > >>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > >>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > >>> > >>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > >>> punished by death. > >>> > >>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > >>> in physics anymore. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > >>>> there. > >>> > >>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > >>> > >>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > >>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > >>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > >>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > >>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > >>>> respect. > >>> > >>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > >>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > >>> > >>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > >>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > >>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > >>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > >>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > >>> > >>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > >> > >> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > >> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > >> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > >> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > >> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > >> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > >> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > >> youtube videos. > >> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > >> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > >> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > >> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > >> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > >> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > >> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > > > > I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > > > > But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > > The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > Thanks very much. > > > > So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > > stepping on a lot of feet. > > Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > > > > It's interesting, anyhow. > > Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > is good. > > > > btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > > worked quite well. > > My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > gearing up for space mining, etc. > > Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > > Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > Courage! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > Arindam Banerjee, > HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > 10 Nov 2023 > (All rights reserved) > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > *** > > Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > > Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > > and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > > ***** > > Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > > Section 1 > Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > design of Interstellar Spacecraft > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > > Section 1 (contd.) > Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > design of Interstellar Spacecraft > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > > Section 2 > The Creation and Destruction of Energy > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > > Section 3 > The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > > Section 4 > The Nature of Explosion > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > > Section 5 > The forces involved in rotational motion > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > > ******* > > 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > IFE - 8 New Physics > > **** > The physics aphorisms of Arindam > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > > The cause of gravity > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > > Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > > Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > > ***** > > > > > This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > > > > > > > > > > TH i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm thinking.. "I'm not going to eat anything here!" "Spaceship Design"???? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come up with one?? Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to another...celestrial mechanics. BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum Teleportation??? Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum teleportation, which represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other location, in order to be materialized there." -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-02 11:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <uuhitu$3c4p4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #652640 |
On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> >> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> TH >>>>>> >>>>>> From your book, the following quote >>>>>> *** >>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and >>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without >>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but >>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** >>>>>> >>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. >>>>> >>>>> Sure. >>>>> >>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and >>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. >>>>> >>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two >>>>> endpoints of the way found. >>>>> >>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his >>>>> fault. >>>>> >>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. >>>>> >>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. >>>>> >>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in >>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let >>>>>> heavenly light in. >>>>> >>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in >>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because >>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. >>>>> >>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be >>>>> punished by death. >>>>> >>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene >>>>> in physics anymore. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. >>>>> >>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows >>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see >>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and >>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful >>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves >>>>>> respect. >>>>> >>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would >>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. >>>>> >>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to >>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun >>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new >>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. >>>>> >>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? >>>> >>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, >>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design >>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown >>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my >>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, >>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that >>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of >>>> youtube videos. >>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they >>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my >>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force >>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used >>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some >>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My >>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. >>> >>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. >>> >>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. >> >> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. >> Thanks very much. >>> >>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are >>> stepping on a lot of feet. >> >> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the >> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. >>> >>> It's interesting, anyhow. >> >> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an >> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. >> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next >> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my >> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that >> is good. >>> >>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which >>> worked quite well. >> >> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. >> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy >> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some >> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work >> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation >> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously >> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and >> gearing up for space mining, etc. >> >> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia >> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like >> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only >> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all >> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. >> >> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics >> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to >> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for >> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the >> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established >> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. >> Courage! >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >> >> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >> Arindam Banerjee, >> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne >> 10 Nov 2023 >> (All rights reserved) >> >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >> >> *** >> >> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 >> >> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near >> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s >> >> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia >> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting >> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s >> >> ***** >> >> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ >> >> Section 1 >> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >> design of Interstellar Spacecraft >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ >> >> Section 1 (contd.) >> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >> design of Interstellar Spacecraft >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ >> >> Section 2 >> The Creation and Destruction of Energy >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ >> >> Section 3 >> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >> >> Section 4 >> The Nature of Explosion >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ >> >> Section 5 >> The forces involved in rotational motion >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ >> >> ******* >> >> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg >> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s >> IFE - 2 Experimental setups >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno >> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws >> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU >> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc >> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA >> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY >> IFE - 8 New Physics >> >> **** >> The physics aphorisms of Arindam >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ >> >> The cause of gravity >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ >> >> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ >> >> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 >> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ >> >> ***** >> >>> >>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> TH > > > i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm thinking.. > > "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > "Spaceship Design"???? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come up with one?? This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 Can you get to the link and see the image? > > Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to another...celestrial mechanics. > > > BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum Teleportation??? > > Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > > "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum teleportation, which > represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other location, in order to be materialized there." > > > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-03 00:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <pV6diSgMn424_BVfaTlYcGfQbuQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #652642 |
Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote >>>>>>> *** >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his >>>>>> fault. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. >>>>>> >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let >>>>>>> heavenly light in. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. >>>>>> >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be >>>>>> punished by death. >>>>>> >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene >>>>>> in physics anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not >>>>>>> there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. >>>>>> >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves >>>>>>> respect. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. >>>>>> >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of >>>>> youtube videos. >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. >>>> >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. >>>> >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. >>> >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. >>> Thanks very much. >>>> >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. >>> >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. >>>> >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. >>> >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that >>> is good. >>>> >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which >>>> worked quite well. >>> >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. >>> >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. >>> >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. >>> Courage! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode >>> Arindam Banerjee, >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne >>> 10 Nov 2023 >>> (All rights reserved) >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ >>> >>> *** >>> >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 >>> >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s >>> >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s >>> >>> ***** >>> >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ >>> >>> Section 1 >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ >>> >>> Section 1 (contd.) >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ >>> >>> Section 2 >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ >>> >>> Section 3 >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>> >>> Section 4 >>> The Nature of Explosion >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ >>> >>> Section 5 >>> The forces involved in rotational motion >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ >>> >>> ******* >>> >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY >>> IFE - 8 New Physics >>> >>> **** >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ >>> >>> The cause of gravity >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ >>> >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ >>> >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ >>> >>> ***** >>> >>>> >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >> >> >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as scientists! >> >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm >> thinking.. >> >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot pretend it is bone broth. Honesty above all. One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come >> up with one? ? Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the film "Independence Day". Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and technology will follow. It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for me. My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change form in the process. So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth do it for us. in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > Can you get to the link and see the image? Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel on and near Earth? > > > >> >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to >> another...celestrial mechanics. Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. >> >> >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum >> Teleportation? ? ? No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein and Einstein's cohorts. While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my point. "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps opportunism, at least for me. >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" >> >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum >> teleportation, which >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other >> location, in order to be materialized there." Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will turn to top truth after that. We can go to the stars, by travelling faster than light with internal force. As I showed in my book "To the Stars!" published online in 2000. My videos, above, make that clear. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-03 00:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <660D076B.6C68@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652653 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> > >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> TH > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote > >>>>>>> *** > >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > >>>>>> fault. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > >>>>>>> heavenly light in. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > >>>>>> punished by death. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > >>>>>> in physics anymore. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > >>>>>>> there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > >>>>>>> respect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > >>>>> youtube videos. > >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > >>>> > >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > >>>> > >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > >>> > >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > >>> Thanks very much. > >>>> > >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. > >>> > >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > >>>> > >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. > >>> > >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > >>> is good. > >>>> > >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > >>>> worked quite well. > >>> > >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > >>> > >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > >>> Courage! > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Arindam Banerjee > >>> > >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > >>> Arindam Banerjee, > >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > >>> 10 Nov 2023 > >>> (All rights reserved) > >>> > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > >>> > >>> *** > >>> > >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > >>> > >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > >>> > >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > >>> > >>> ***** > >>> > >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > >>> > >>> Section 1 > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > >>> > >>> Section 1 (contd.) > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 2 > >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 3 > >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 4 > >>> The Nature of Explosion > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > >>> > >>> Section 5 > >>> The forces involved in rotational motion > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > >>> > >>> ******* > >>> > >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > >>> IFE - 8 New Physics > >>> > >>> **** > >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > >>> > >>> The cause of gravity > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > >>> > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > >>> > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > >>> > >>> ***** > >>> > >>>> > >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> TH > >> > >> > >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, > experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as > scientists! > >> > >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm > >> thinking.. > >> > >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot > pretend it is bone broth. > Honesty above all. > One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. > > >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come > >> up with one? ? > > Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the > film "Independence Day". > Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. > > And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. > That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and > technology will follow. > > It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. > So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for > me. > > My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is > always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change > form in the process. > > So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. > > How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth > do it for us. > > in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, > Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. > > Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. > And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > > > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > > > Can you get to the link and see the image? > > Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, > and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel > on and near Earth? > > > > > > > > >> > >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to > >> another...celestrial mechanics. > > Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by > those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. > >> > >> > >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum > >> Teleportation? ? ? > > No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein > and Einstein's cohorts. > While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my > point. > "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! > It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps > opportunism, at least for me. > > >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's > >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > >> > >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum > >> teleportation, which > >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other > >> location, in order to be materialized there." > > Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-sheet.html > turn to top truth after that. > We can go to the stars, by travelling faster than light with internal > force. As I showed in my book "To the Stars!" published online in 2000. > > My videos, above, make that clear. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-03 01:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <660D0CFA.294@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652664 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > > > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> TH > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote > > >>>>>>> *** > > >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > > >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > > >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > > >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > > >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > > >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > > >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sure. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > > >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > > >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > > >>>>>> fault. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > > >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > > >>>>>>> heavenly light in. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > > >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > > >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > > >>>>>> punished by death. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > > >>>>>> in physics anymore. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > > >>>>>>> there. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > > >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > > >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > > >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > > >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > > >>>>>>> respect. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > > >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > > >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > > >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > > >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > > >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > > >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > > >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > > >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > > >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > > >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > > >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > > >>>>> youtube videos. > > >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > > >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > > >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > > >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > > >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > > >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > > >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > > >>>> > > >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > > >>>> > > >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > > >>> > > >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > > >>> Thanks very much. > > >>>> > > >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > > >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. > > >>> > > >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > > >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > > >>>> > > >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. > > >>> > > >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > > >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > > >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > > >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > > >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > > >>> is good. > > >>>> > > >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > > >>>> worked quite well. > > >>> > > >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > > >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > > >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > > >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > > >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > > >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > > >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > > >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > > >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > > >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > > >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > > >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > > >>> > > >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > > >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > > >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > > >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > > >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > > >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > > >>> Courage! > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Arindam Banerjee > > >>> > > >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > > >>> Arindam Banerjee, > > >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > > >>> 10 Nov 2023 > > >>> (All rights reserved) > > >>> > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > >>> > > >>> *** > > >>> > > >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > > >>> > > >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > > >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > > >>> > > >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > > >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > > >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > > >>> > > >>> ***** > > >>> > > >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > > >>> > > >>> Section 1 > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > > >>> > > >>> Section 1 (contd.) > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > > >>> > > >>> Section 2 > > >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > > >>> > > >>> Section 3 > > >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > > >>> > > >>> Section 4 > > >>> The Nature of Explosion > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > > >>> > > >>> Section 5 > > >>> The forces involved in rotational motion > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > > >>> > > >>> ******* > > >>> > > >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > >>> > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > >>> IFE - 8 New Physics > > >>> > > >>> **** > > >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > > >>> > > >>> The cause of gravity > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > > >>> > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > > >>> > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > > >>> > > >>> ***** > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> TH > > >> > > >> > > >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > > > No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, > > experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as > > scientists! > > >> > > >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm > > >> thinking.. > > >> > > >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > > > Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot > > pretend it is bone broth. > > Honesty above all. > > One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. > > > > >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come > > >> up with one? ? > > > > Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the > > film "Independence Day". > > Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. > > > > And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. > > That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and > > technology will follow. > > > > It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. > > So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for > > me. > > > > My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is > > always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change > > form in the process. > > > > So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. > > > > How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth > > do it for us. > > > > in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, > > Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. > > > > Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. > > And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > > > > > > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > > > > > Can you get to the link and see the image? > > > > Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, > > and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel > > on and near Earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to > > >> another...celestrial mechanics. > > > > Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by > > those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. > > >> > > >> > > >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum > > >> Teleportation? ? ? > > > > No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein > > and Einstein's cohorts. > > While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my > > point. > > "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! > > It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps > > opportunism, at least for me. > > > > >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's > > >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > > >> > > >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum > > >> teleportation, which > > >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > > >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other > > >> location, in order to be materialized there." > > > > Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will > > What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here: > > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-sheet.html http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/tpx/barker/case_for_ufo.pdf NOTE: Anyone reading this book would have to KNOW that Electron quatums (sic), Within Molecular structures, are similar in scope of "field" as Planets orbits. They Would Have to know that. Electrons in Metal go across, What in Planetary Systems, would be BILLIONS OF MILES, Leaving three a Graviational field, Deadspot or Node, or Vortice or Neutral as this one thing is variously called. Realizing this as Dr. Albert Einstien did, it shows clearly how solids may become Energy or Dissolute AND How then they May Pass easily out of Visual scope instantly. This is Merely one Clue gleamed from Einstiens Theory of a Unified Magnetic Field through all substances AND throughout Whole inter-GalacticUniverse.U.S. EXPIERMENTS, 1943 ON ONE PART OF IT PROVED PLENTY!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-03 22:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <660E4169.6CBC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652665 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > > > > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> TH > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote > > > >>>>>>> *** > > > >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > > > >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > > > >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > > > >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > > > >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > > > >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > > > >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Sure. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > > > >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > > > >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > > > >>>>>> fault. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > > > >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > > > >>>>>>> heavenly light in. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > > > >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > > > >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > > > >>>>>> punished by death. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > > > >>>>>> in physics anymore. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > > > >>>>>>> there. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > > > >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > > > >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > > > >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > > > >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > > > >>>>>>> respect. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > > > >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > > > >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > > > >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > > > >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > > > >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > > > >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > > > >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > > > >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > > > >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > > > >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > > > >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > > > >>>>> youtube videos. > > > >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > > > >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > > > >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > > > >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > > > >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > > > >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > > > >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > > > >>> > > > >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > > > >>> Thanks very much. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > > > >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. > > > >>> > > > >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > > > >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. > > > >>> > > > >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > > > >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > > > >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > > > >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > > > >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > > > >>> is good. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > > > >>>> worked quite well. > > > >>> > > > >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > > > >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > > > >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > > > >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > > > >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > > > >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > > > >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > > > >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > > > >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > > > >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > > > >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > > > >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > > > >>> > > > >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > > > >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > > > >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > > > >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > > > >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > > > >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > > > >>> Courage! > > > >>> > > > >>> Cheers, > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee > > > >>> > > > >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee, > > > >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > > > >>> 10 Nov 2023 > > > >>> (All rights reserved) > > > >>> > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> *** > > > >>> > > > >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > > > >>> > > > >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > > > >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > > > >>> > > > >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > > > >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > > > >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > > > >>> > > > >>> ***** > > > >>> > > > >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Section 1 > > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Section 1 (contd.) > > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Section 2 > > > >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Section 3 > > > >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Section 4 > > > >>> The Nature of Explosion > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Section 5 > > > >>> The forces involved in rotational motion > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> ******* > > > >>> > > > >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > >>> > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > >>> IFE - 8 New Physics > > > >>> > > > >>> **** > > > >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> The cause of gravity > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > > > >>> > > > >>> ***** > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> TH > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > > > > > No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, > > > experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as > > > scientists! > > > >> > > > >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm > > > >> thinking.. > > > >> > > > >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > > > > > Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot > > > pretend it is bone broth. > > > Honesty above all. > > > One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. > > > > > > >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come > > > >> up with one? ? > > > > > > Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the > > > film "Independence Day". > > > Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. > > > > > > And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. > > > That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and > > > technology will follow. > > > > > > It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. > > > So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for > > > me. > > > > > > My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is > > > always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change > > > form in the process. > > > > > > So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. > > > > > > How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth > > > do it for us. > > > > > > in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, > > > Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. > > > > > > Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. > > > And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > > > > > > > > > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > > > > > > > Can you get to the link and see the image? > > > > > > Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, > > > and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel > > > on and near Earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to > > > >> another...celestrial mechanics. > > > > > > Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by > > > those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum > > > >> Teleportation? ? ? > > > > > > No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein > > > and Einstein's cohorts. > > > While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my > > > point. > > > "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! > > > It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps > > > opportunism, at least for me. > > > > > > >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's > > > >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > > > >> > > > >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum > > > >> teleportation, which > > > >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > > > >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other > > > >> location, in order to be materialized there." > > > > > > Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will > > > > What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here: > > > > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-sheet.ht > > http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/tpx/barker/case_for_ufo.pdf > > NOTE: Anyone reading this book would have to KNOW that Electron > quatums (sic), Within Molecular structures, are similar in scope of > "field" as Planets orbits. They Would Have to know that. Electrons in > Metal go across, What in Planetary Systems, would be BILLIONS OF MILES, > Leaving three a Graviational field, Deadspot or Node, or Vortice or > Neutral as this one thing is variously called. Realizing this as Dr. > Albert Einstien did, it shows clearly how solids may become Energy or > Dissolute AND How then they May Pass easily out of Visual scope > instantly. This is Merely one Clue gleamed from Einstiens Theory of a > Unified Magnetic Field through all substances AND throughout Whole > inter-GalacticUniverse.U.S. EXPIERMENTS, 1943 ON ONE PART OF IT PROVED > PLENTY! While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he started working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can be made to disapear and reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his grand unified theiroy. He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war department. Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-04 11:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <660EED45.39DC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #652674 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > > > Le 03/04/2024 à 03:31, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : > > > > > On 4/2/2024 10:23 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Le 02/04/2024 à 16:51, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > > >>>> Am 30.03.2024 um 11:38 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > > >>>>> Le 30/03/2024 à 18:48, Thomas Heger a écrit : > > > > >>>>>> Am 28.03.2024 um 08:09 schrieb Arindam Banerjee: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe you like my 'book' > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TH > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> From your book, the following quote > > > > >>>>>>> *** > > > > >>>>>>> This project was started as a search for the connection between QM and > > > > >>>>>>> GR. The connection was hypothesized and assumed to exist (without > > > > >>>>>>> knowing it's specific features), since nature has to be understood as an > > > > >>>>>>> undivided system. So all theories should describe the same world, but > > > > >>>>>>> possibly different aspects. Spacetime is a physical system, hence should > > > > >>>>>>> be build out of 'elements' (what are the 'building blocks'). *** > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Any connection between two theoretical (conjectural, impractical as yet) > > > > >>>>>>> notions as QM and GR must necessarily be theoretical as well. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Sure. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> If you try to find a way between to spots (let's call them 'QM' and > > > > >>>>>> 'GR'), you need to assume, those spots do in fact exist. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> It's not the duty of the pathfinder, to prove the existence of the two > > > > >>>>>> endpoints of the way found. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> If there is actually nothing at these positions, it's actually not his > > > > >>>>>> fault. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> In theory, the Moon is green cheese with cows jumping over it. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> No, not really. At least I've never heard of such a theory. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> People were burnt to death for not believing that the stars moved in > > > > >>>>>>> crystal spheres, and the stars were holes in those spheres to let > > > > >>>>>>> heavenly light in. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Well, that's not quite true, neither. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Unfortunately, the catholic church had killed several scientists in > > > > >>>>>> the middle ages, but not because of their discoveries, but because > > > > >>>>>> they were questioning the authority of the church. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> That authority was meant to be absolute and ANY disobedience could be > > > > >>>>>> punished by death. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> This has changed significantly and today the pope does not intervene > > > > >>>>>> in physics anymore. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> The justification for QM and GR as practical let alone scientific is not > > > > >>>>>>> there. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Well, yes, because that was NOT my topic. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> While there is charm in seeing the moon as green cheese with cows > > > > >>>>>>> jumping around it, and there is profit in all the heaven stuff, I see > > > > >>>>>>> neither pleasure nor profit from QM and GR, save for the careerists and > > > > >>>>>>> their dupes blown by math mumbo-jumbo. I know this is the most powerful > > > > >>>>>>> nonsense ever to be globally accepted, in our times, and that deserves > > > > >>>>>>> respect. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You may rightfully critizise QM and GR, and in a way I would > > > > >>>>>> understand you, but this was not the subject of my 'book'. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to > > > > >>>>>>> physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun > > > > >>>>>>> for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their > > > > >>>>>>> warplanes from navy carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new > > > > >>>>>>> discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You invented the railgun? ? ? ? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy, > > > > >>>>> perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design > > > > >>>>> is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown > > > > >>>>> in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my > > > > >>>>> first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015, > > > > >>>>> and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that > > > > >>>>> time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of > > > > >>>>> youtube videos. > > > > >>>>> My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they > > > > >>>>> said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my > > > > >>>>> supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force > > > > >>>>> accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used > > > > >>>>> a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some > > > > >>>>> reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My > > > > >>>>> detailed analysis shows inertia violation. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I had always thought, that my 'book' was 'revolutionary'. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> But your research is far more revolutionary than mine. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The research period was from 1998 - 2015. It is development time now. > > > > >>> Thanks very much. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> So, hope the best for you, but see trouble ahead, because you are > > > > >>>> stepping on a lot of feet. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Never a truer word was said. I am glad that at least one physicist in the > > > > >>> universe is not mocking or ignoring me. That is a start. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> It's interesting, anyhow. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Well, it will take a lot of money to make a working prototype of an > > > > >>> internal force machine that will replace all rockets and jet engines. > > > > >>> How I can earn that money, is my present concern. Let us see if my next > > > > >>> project (making a very cheap "free energy" drive) works as my > > > > >>> maths/intuition says is should. I have found no patents for that, and that > > > > >>> is good. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> btw: I had 'published' my 'book' as google doc presentation, which > > > > >>>> worked quite well. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> My book "To the Stars" was published in Jan 2000 in my new "adda" website. > > > > >>> I presented my new formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) to explain mass and energy > > > > >>> relationships on a kinetic and non-destructive basis. It got some > > > > >>> attention when in 2003 there was a global news release about this work > > > > >>> relating to updating Newtonian laws, with deliberate inertia violation > > > > >>> using Lorentz force, it that had no reaction. Had I been taken seriously > > > > >>> then, we would have been making daily trips to the Moon by now, and > > > > >>> gearing up for space mining, etc. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Unfortunately for "modern physicists", as I right (from my inertia > > > > >>> violation experiments) they are all wrong. I don't expect them to like > > > > >>> being wrong, so resistance from their side is to be expected. I can only > > > > >>> appeal to their commitment to the scientific method, which has it that all > > > > >>> knowledge is provisional, and so subject to revision or expulsion. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Look at the gains. Burning all the e=mcc=hv stuff and updating physics > > > > >>> will create plenty of jobs for physicists and engineers, for all time to > > > > >>> come! No end of learning and finding, with new machines always going for > > > > >>> new things. Why stick to the old and rotten, the senseless and the > > > > >>> constricting? May truth overcome the cunning of the globally established > > > > >>> liars. With my physics, the universe gets infinite like human potential. > > > > >>> Courage! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cheers, > > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The violation of inertia with a new design rail gun in motor mode > > > > >>> Arindam Banerjee, > > > > >>> HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne > > > > >>> 10 Nov 2023 > > > > >>> (All rights reserved) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> *** > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near > > > > >>> space , and horizontal tunneling shown in > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s > > > > >>> > > > > >>> and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia > > > > >>> can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting > > > > >>> that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ***** > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 1 > > > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 1 (contd.) > > > > >>> Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the > > > > >>> design of Interstellar Spacecraft > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 2 > > > > >>> The Creation and Destruction of Energy > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 3 > > > > >>> The Structure of Heavenly Bodies > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 4 > > > > >>> The Nature of Explosion > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Section 5 > > > > >>> The forces involved in rotational motion > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ******* > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 2017 videos of rail gun experiments with theory in detail > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > > > >>> IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > > > >>> IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > > > >>> IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > > > >>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > > > >>> IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > > > >>> IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > > > >>> IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > >>> > > > > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > > > >>> IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > >>> > > > > >>> **** > > > > >>> The physics aphorisms of Arindam > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The cause of gravity > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 > > > > >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ***** > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> This format is a little bit similar to usual websites. That's why I took it. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> TH > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> i haven't looked at any of your 'youtubes', your titles are ...insane. > > > > > > > > No, they are purely scientific, backed with facts, logic, maths, > > > > experiment... well, all that may not suit theologians posing as > > > > scientists! > > > > >> > > > > >> It's like going to a resturant and seeing the menu on the board and I'm > > > > >> thinking.. > > > > >> > > > > >> "I'm not going to eat anything here!" > > > > > > > > Okay. Each to his own. If I am serving dal, to a carnivore, I cannot > > > > pretend it is bone broth. > > > > Honesty above all. > > > > One can take a donkey to the water, but cannot make it drink, what. > > > > > > > > >> "Spaceship Design"? ? ? ? How about "Flying Saucer Design"? Have you 'em, come > > > > >> up with one? ? > > > > > > > > Oh yes, with internal force you have something like that as shown in the > > > > film "Independence Day". > > > > Fiction becomes fact, sometimes. > > > > > > > > And yes, I have come up with the amoeba of one, with inertia violation. > > > > That updates Newton and throws out Einstein. Science is clear and > > > > technology will follow. > > > > > > > > It will take billions to make a practical engine. I don't have billions. > > > > So let us see if I can make billions to develop one, that is the goal for > > > > me. > > > > > > > > My key point is that the law of conservation of energy is wrong. Energy is > > > > always created and destroyed in our infinite universe, while it may change > > > > form in the process. > > > > > > > > So, before it gets destroyed, we can use it, like we use solar power. > > > > > > > > How to create energy, is the issue. Sun does that, now let us make Earth > > > > do it for us. > > > > > > > > in short, permanent motion machines created by the Divine (like the Sun, > > > > Earth, atoms) may perhaps be created by man. > > > > > > > > Since da Vinci said that was impossible, it is up to me to fix that issue. > > > > And very simply too, in a way he could have done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This popped out of one of my experimental n-ary vector fields: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=529502021542134&set=a.110008616824812 > > > > > > > > > > Can you get to the link and see the image? > > > > > > > > Why? Will it help me to make the billions that I need to make the IFE, > > > > and replace rockets and jet engines for space conquest and faster travel > > > > on and near Earth? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Come on, the math is easy..just get the spaceship going from one planet to > > > > >> another...celestrial mechanics. > > > > > > > > Abuse of mathematics, reducing it to gibberish, is what can be expected by > > > > those trying theological tricks relating to mystery. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> BTW, have you ever thought about improving on Albert Einstein's Quantum > > > > >> Teleportation? ? ? > > > > > > > > No. My thoughts about Einstein follows what Tesla thought about Einstein > > > > and Einstein's cohorts. > > > > While relativity is totally rubbish, quantum is merely wrong - that is my > > > > point. > > > > "Up Newton, Down Einstein" is the cry from me! > > > > It is not a profitable slogan at this stage, but honesty trumps > > > > opportunism, at least for me. > > > > > > > > >> Einstein was working on...Quantum Teleportation. Called "The Einstein's > > > > >> Continuum of Spatio-Temporal" > > > > >> > > > > >> "The Einstein's continuum of spatio-temporal which enabled idea of quantum > > > > >> teleportation, which > > > > >> represents technique of dematerialization of the matter, in one location and > > > > >> 'faxing', namely, electronic transmission to quantum state on the other > > > > >> location, in order to be materialized there." > > > > > > > > Gibberish. It is like telling a lie a million times and expecting it will > > > > > > What do you mean by "Gibberish", it's all here: > > > > > > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment.html > > https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/p/philadelphia-experiment/philadelphia-experiment-onr-info-shee > > > > http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/tpx/barker/case_for_ufo.pdf > > > > NOTE: Anyone reading this book would have to KNOW that Electron > > quatums (sic), Within Molecular structures, are similar in scope of > > "field" as Planets orbits. They Would Have to know that. Electrons in > > Metal go across, What in Planetary Systems, would be BILLIONS OF MILES, > > Leaving three a Graviational field, Deadspot or Node, or Vortice or > > Neutral as this one thing is variously called. Realizing this as Dr. > > Albert Einstien did, it shows clearly how solids may become Energy or > > Dissolute AND How then they May Pass easily out of Visual scope > > instantly. This is Merely one Clue gleamed from Einstiens Theory of a > > Unified Magnetic Field through all substances AND throughout Whole > > inter-GalacticUniverse.U.S. EXPIERMENTS, 1943 ON ONE PART OF IT PROVED > > PLENTY! > > While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he > started > working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can > be made to disapear and > reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his > grand unified theiroy. > > He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war > department. > > Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany? Any American pilot who got killed by German warplanes could thank Albert Einstein. Just as the Japanese thanked Albert Einstein for inventing the atomic bomb that was used to murder their people. Of course, Albert Einstein always sounded like those Germans in Hogan's Heros "I KNOW NOOTHINGGGGG!!!!" But on the otherside of Albert Einstein's mouth was..."Build that Hydrogen bomb!!!" and the otherside of his mouth.."THESE BOMBS ARE TERRIBLE!" Albert Einstein had only one goal after ww2, "EXTERMINATE ALL THE GERMANS!!!!" kaput! and the otherside of his mouth.."THESE BOMBS ARE TERRIBLE!" The fact is, Albert Einstein knew MONTHS before that the U.S. was going to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, ...and did nothing. It's Documented. "I KNOW NOOTHINGGGGG!!!!" -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-08 20:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Getting there at last... |
| Message-ID | <l7ipqkF719sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #652674 |
Am 04.04.2024 um 07:58 schrieb The Starmaker: ... >> > While Albert Einstein was busy designing new bombs for the military, he > started > working on his 'Grand Unified theory' and told the military, a ship can > be made to disapear and > reappear somewhere else. But of course he needs money to finish his > grand unified theiroy. > > He always figured out how to 'attach' his theories to the military war > department. > > Didn't Albert Einstein design airplanes for the Germans in Germany? > As far as I know he didn't. But he worked together with Leo Szillard in Berlin and Leo Szillard is assumed to be the 'father' of the atomic bomb. So, I assume, that Albert Einstein was at least an uncle. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web